Abstract

The objectives of this article are to compare oxygen consumption (VO2) and perceptual responses between continuous and interval eccentric cycling protocols in order to test the hypothesis that metabolic demand and enjoyment would be greater for interval than continuous eccentric cycling protocols. Eleven recreationally active men (n = 9) and women (32.6 ± 9.4 years) performed a concentric cycling test to determine peak power output (PPO) followed by five eccentric cycling protocols on separate occasions: continuous eccentric cycling at 60% of PPO for 20 min at 60 rpm (CONT20@60%) and 13.2 min at 90 rpm (CONT13@60%), 4 × 4 min at 75% of PPO with 2-min rest (INT4×4@75%), 12 × 1 min at 100% of PPO with 1-min rest (INT1×12@100%) and 10 × 1 min at 150% of PPO with 1-min rest (INT1×10@150%). Gas exchange and power output were recorded continuously, and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and enjoyment were assessed after each exercise. Total VO2 including the rest periods was the greatest (p < 0.0001) during INT1×10@150% (382 ± 73 ml kg−1) and lowest (p < 0.0001) during CONT13@60% (146 ± 27 ml kg−1). Total VO2 during INT1×12@100% (312 ± 59 ml kg−1) was greater (p < 0.0001) than CONT20@60% (246 ± 63 ml kg−1) and INT4×4@75% (257 ± 42 ml kg−1). RPE was greater (p < 0.0001) after INT1×10@150% (17 ± 2) than other conditions, but perceived enjoyment was not significantly different between protocols. It was concluded that the interval protocols increased metabolic demand without increasing RPE and enjoyment. It appears that high-intensity interval protocols can be used in eccentric cycling prescription.